"The truth that makes men free is for the most
part the truth which men prefer not to hear."

Herbert Agar

Sunday, 28 February 2010

Martial Law and election fraud

Newsletter originally sent October 2008

After I joined the 9/11 Truth Campaign in December 2006 I was asking what happens when half the US population no longer believes the official story.

Some of us thought the US Administration might panic and launch a false flag attack and abolish elections. I thought the dollar would collapse as confidence fell, but others, who had a better understanding of how economic cycles work, were telling me that there would be an engineered economic collapse.

Alex Jones, who runs a radio chat show in the US, has been warning of Martial Law for a long time. He predicted 9/11. He's produced films on the topic. See his website at http://infowars.com.

Well, we're there now. The event was the financial melt-down. But it's not just the dollar, it's the world. The US regime is acquiring enormous powers as a result. Something similar is happening in the UK.

Some time ago, we saw how Labour party veteran Walter Wolfgang was grabbed and detained under anti-terrorist legislation when he shouted 'Nonsense' at Foreign Minister Jack Straw, who had claimed that they were bringing democracy to Iraq:

In the US we saw how student Andrew Meyer was grabbed by police and tortured when he asked former US Presidential candidate John Kerry why he had so easily submitted to George Bush when he, John Kerry, had won the election, and then went on to ask whether they were both members of the same secret society:

That was just the tip of the iceberg.

In the UK we have seen creeping legislation affecting basic democratic rights, and this was featured in the film 'Taking Liberties' (http://www.noliberties.com/).

Some lawyers were saying that whoever was to take over from Tony Blair, he would inherit more means of gaining absolute control than Adolf Hitler inherited from Hindenburg.

Now a large-scale covert infiltration called Common Purpose has been reported in all sorts of public institutions across the country, following extensive research by former naval officer Brian Gerrish. A political organisation masquerading as a charity now has 18 000 of its own people in key positions in local government, the National Health Service, the BBC and other institutions, with the aim of taking control. They divert public funds and have people in high places.

Brian gave a lecture on October 7 under the title 'Who's really running Britain?'. which can be found at Changing Times and where you can find audio

I had realised that something like this must exist from my own observations. What Brian Gerrish describes is much deeper than anything I had imagined. I had been investigating membership collapse in a charitable membership association that I had been involved in for many years. That led me on to look for parallel examples, and I found them in the penetration of even 'tiny organisation which pose no threat to national security'.

It later became clear to me that there had to be some bigger network. It is possible that Common Purpose is only the tip of the iceberg. Brian Gerrish, in his talk, urges people to expose what is going on at the grass roots level. That means being alert in any organisations you are a member of, however charming the people concerned may be.

Naomi Wolf's 'Ten Steps to Tyranny' include subversion of citizens associations (http://www.obsidianhustle.com/2007/11/ten_steps_to_tyranny.html). It's now widely believed that this is far more extensive than just the big protest movements. I think it's important for us all to be alert in whatever groups we may be involved with. All too often these things are left to individual whistleblowers, whilst others remain silent, and the majority go along with the official line. To understand how this works, see Solomon Asch's experimental work on Conformance

To break this, we need to understand the importance of speaking out, or at least asking the right questions. As soon as the whistleblower is no longer in a minority of one, things begin to change. So, if you are in a membership organisation, be especially alert if there is a move to

criticise an individual on the basis of only vague allegations

be evasive on straight-forward questions * answer questions by attacking the character of the questioner

obfuscate on the accounts

focus in the treasurer's report on details of investments rather than on the essential issues, such as the use of the money and budgets

distance the members from the committee on the basis of Charity Status or the Trustees being 'professionals'

elitism

fob off critics rather than acting on criticisms

ignore points made at the AGM in subsequent committee meetings

do things which gain credit for the committee rather than to get results

target the membership with their publicity or promotion rather than the outside world

misapply the Data Protection Act to cut off regional branches

criticise a committee member for being critical of the committee

criticise a member for being in a minority of one too often in the voting

con members into voting for a resolution on the basis that only Trustees of a Charity can really decide

use gestures or oratory to persuade rather than facts and arguments

implement excessive secrecy or confidentiality

make allegations in respect to others of which they themselves may be guilty

make serial mess-ups whilst showing no willingness to leave office

create furores without any visible sign of attempts to sort the problem out

serially to create quarrels with key individuals

blame everyone but themselves for things going wrong

defend themselves by saying "I've heard that a hundred times before" but not saying what the answer was record questions in the minutes without giving the answers. Beware also of people who use their status, their authority or their credence in order to persuade, rather than the force of argument.

The one about having heard a complaint or question a hundred time before was a repeated reaction both of the President of my association and the former head of MI6, who played a role in making a fallacious case for invading Iraq. Once his authority was disregarded in questions following a lecture at the London School of Economics, he had nothing to fall back on. I was surprised how my own observations seemed to apply right up to Cabinet level. See Clare Short's autobiography ('An Honourable Deception?: New Labour, Iraq, and the Misuse of Power'), in which she states that the UK has not had cabinet government since 1997. If you are in Liberty, ask yourself why only the paid Chief Executive Officer is ever interviewed by the mainstream press. She is a former Home Office barrister. I attended one AGM, and was appalled at a resolution to enable the committee to expel any committee member who said anything to the press that he had not been authorised to say. That seemed to me like an attack on civil liberties. I was the first to speak out, saying that I had met a similar situation in another membership organisation and that such provision can be abused. The motion was thrown out. That's where we are in civil liberties. I agree with Brian Gerrish's approach, that in order to preserve democracy we must work at it at grass roots level and speak out. We must also avoid being angry or provoked. If you are too persistent they will try to push you over the edge. Once you accept that they may be doing this on purpose life gets a whole lot easier. I stuck it out for two years of constant ad hominem attacks in six issues of the journals of my association per year, simply because I had ignored their intimitation. In the end they made a mistake by admitting that a communication of mine bore the implication that they were out to destroy the association, but they denied nothing of what I had written. Instead, they invented clearly faked allegations to knock down ('straw man argument'). Their own former legal adviser stepped in (http://rik.poreo.org) and I reported this at the 2008 AGM. The campaign then stopped, and then many people started taking an interest in what I had to say. In short: observe, listen, discuss, don't be fobbed off, don't be provoked. Document everything. We all need to wake up to what is going on, and to call people in official positions to account, whether in national government, in local government, in public bodies, in quangos, and even in small voluntary associations.

No comments:

Post a Comment

The Maiwand Lion

This statue, made of cast iron and weighing 16 tons, is situated in the town of Reading, Berkshire. The inscription reads:

This monument records the names and commemorates the valour and devotion of XI (11) officers and CCCXVIII (318) non-commissioned officers and men of the LXVI (66th) Berkshire Regiment who gave their lives for their country at Girishk Maiwand and Kandahar and during the Afghan Campaign MDCCCLXXIX (1879) - MDCCCLXXX (1880).

"History does not afford any grander or finer instance of gallantry and devotion to Queen and country than that displayed by the LXVI Regiment at the Battle of Maiwand on the XXVII (27th) July MDCCCLXXX (1880)."

Despatch of General Primrose.

Welcome!

This blog has been set up to publish regular newsletters in conjunction with the Berkshire 9/11 Truth website. The newsletters are on current issues as well as offering opinions on media articles both in the UK and abroad.